ACTION_BLUETOOTH

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses privilege requirements, an Android-version limitation, output variable names, interpolation, and variable-snapshot JSON returns. It could be more precise that only status writes bluetooth_enabled and explain success/failure semantics, although the schema partially supplies the former.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the tool’s purpose before prerequisites, outputs, and return conventions. Despite the nested parenthetical, each clause contributes actionable information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Together with the fully described schema, the definition covers invocation, platform prerequisites, error and timeout controls, variable interpolation, and result variables. The absence of an output schema is adequately mitigated by the stated output names and snapshot JSON format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the action, require, on_error, and node_timeout_ms parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter behavior by stating that string parameters support ${var} interpolation and by tying privilege requirements to the selected action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening “蓝牙开关、切换、查询状态” clearly identifies Bluetooth control and status querying, with the schema supplying the exact on/off/toggle/status actions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as ACTION_WIFI, though the distinct resource makes confusion unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete usage context: switching requires Shizuku or root, ordinary-app system APIs are ineffective on Android 13+, and status queries do not require those privileges. It does not provide broader when-not guidance or name an alternative tool, but the operation-specific prerequisites are genuinely useful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.